AO3

• Evaluation Points: Cognitive Interview

  • Time consuming and expensive
  • Supporting research for effectiveness of CI: Kohnken meta-analysis
  • Some elements are more useful than others: Milne & Bull
• Time Consuming and Expensive

  POINT

  • Police need to be trained to conduct the cognitive interview, which is expensive and time consuming
• Time Consuming and Expensive


  EXPLANATION

  • This makes it difficult for the cognitive interview to be widely used and be effective, as some areas do not have enough resources to provide the training.
• Time Consuming and Expensive

  LINK

  • This does not question the validity of the cognitive interview, but limits the real life application and generalisability of the concept.
• Supporting Evidence for Effectiveness: Kohnken

  POINT

  • Kohnken conducted a meta-analysis of 55 studies investigating the difference between results from cognitive interview and standard police interview.
• Supporting Evidence for Effectiveness: Kohnken

  EXPLANATION

  • They found that on average, the cognitive interview produced 41% more information that the standard police interview.
  • Only 4 out of 55 of the studies had found no difference between the results from the cognitive interview and standard police interview.
• Supporting Evidence for Effectiveness: Kohnken

  LINK

  • This shows that the cognitive interview is effective.
• Supporting Evidence for Effectiveness: Kohnken

  COUNTERPOINT

  • Kohnken's meta-analysis also found that the cognitive interview also increased the amount of incorrect information reported. This questions the validity and reliability of the cognitive interview,
• Some Elements Might be More Useful

  POINT

  • Milne and Bull found that each principle alone is more effective than the standard police interview.
  • However, when using report everything and context reinstatement together produced more information than any other combinations.
  • This questions the validity of cognitive interview